Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aioshin

should I replace xandros with...

Recommended Posts

ok, they (main Office) sent me a pc preinstalled with Xandros 3 Business Edition, with a couple of Diskless workstations...so it is supposed to act as an LTSP server.. I already installed on it LTSP and its working.. but the guy who installed the xandros created so many partitions... well, I dont really know if this is the default Xandros Partition.. I'd tried to change some partition assignment via the fstab, but when rebooted.. it sets back some of its default... I dont have the CD of Xandros, so I cannot do some changes, since if it will crash.. I dont have something to Fix it... also, some utils that other distro have are not on xandros... like.. qparted, or the one similar to diskdrake... tried to apt-get it but it wont install due to some failed dependencies... also, it does'nt have the chkconfig tool, maybe it have and I just dont knew it or it has been renamed...

.

Now, I started to deslike it... if.... what distro shoud I use to replace it... its a deb distro.. but I prefer rpm..

what if I replace it with Mandriva?

or Centos..?

or openSUse?

 

I just need some of your thoughts... really.. Its been two days since im staring on this Xandros thing trying to figure out if I should replace it... :unsure:

Edited by aioshin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used the free Xandros version, and it was wiped clean within a day of installing. Didn't like it. I went back to Mandriva :P

 

I guess depends on what you want to achieve from it, to what distro you install. If it was my home machines, it would be Mandriva. At work, Red Hat because that's what we are supposed to use. But Fedora/CentOS are almost Red Hat anyway.

 

I prefer Mandriva, because it works out the dependencies much better than Red Hat. Although Fedora/CentOS would be OK because I believe they use yum. I wouldn't use SuSe or recommend it, too many problems I hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CentOS is Red Hat and a very good solution for a server. Fedora is not Red Hat. That is a common mistake that many make, but really, Fedora and Red Hat are two very, very different things. And for servers, I would never use Fedora, to be honest.

 

My choice would be Mandriva (what else? :P) as it gave me the fewest annoyances of all distros. Yeah, I am harsh at times criticising Mandriva, but others get flamed even more by me. :D

 

Old wisdom: Use the distro that is most familiar to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks guys... maybe I should replace it with Mandriva... I have an LTSP server running on Mandriva 10.1 serving 3 ThinClient running for almost two years now.. and was able to resolve some problem on it... though I have tried Centos but as Server for File, mail, and web... and hav'nt tried it as Desktop

 

thanks again... at least I will not be force to join another Forum :P

.

honestly.. Im trying to get rid of Mandriva on my desktop.. but failed to look for something better...

.

:offtopic:

 

In fairness to OpenSuse, I have it on other Boot on this same desktop Im using.. and I only encountered one problem on it..yet, the AutoFS/automounter package... which I really needed on mounting smb and nfs drive on demand, though its the same problem that Mandriva has on its default autofs package.. it wont auto-unmount on the certain timeout...but was able to resolve it on mandriva by installing autofs package from source, while on OpenSuse, I cant even install the autofs source.., but in general.. as how I see OpenSuse on my desktop.. its cool..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CentOS is Red Hat and a very good solution for a server. Fedora is not Red Hat. That is a common mistake that many make, but really, Fedora and Red Hat are two very, very different things. And for servers, I would never use Fedora, to be honest.

 

Many thanks for the correction, I always thought Fedora was kind of like Red Hat, or at least similar in some ways :P

 

Old wisdom: Use the distro that is most familiar to you.

 

Can't agree more than go with what you like best. Personally for servers, I use Gentoo, but work dictates Red Hat. It's all personal preference at the end of the day, as well as what performs best for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well... I did not make it, I mean, I did not replace it with any other distro... afterall, xndros is still linux, and its debian... I just realized that, this is a chance for me to learn deb... so I decided to just keep it as is.. now I'm exploring apt-get on installing those missing applications...

.

one more thing.. apt-get is just fast.. have u tried it?

Edited by aioshin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. I am running Debian for quite some time on one box but I decided that I will soon migrate all of my boxes (six machines in total) except one back (which runs Fedora and is reserved for Yoper development also (Dualboot system)) to Mandriva. Just like you, I tried to get rid of Mandy and I tried many, many distros.. and where am I now? Back with Mandy and quite pleased. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a quick question, to those using 2006 for some time... how do you find its stability, compared to 2005 and 10.1...?

 

:D

 

Still planning to replace Xandros.. though its running now....

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CentOS is Red Hat and a very good solution for a server. Fedora is not Red Hat. That is a common mistake that many make, but really, Fedora and Red Hat are two very, very different things. And for servers, I would never use Fedora, to be honest.

 

Why not fedora?

Many sites are using it as their web-server like Wikipedia (FC4) and others, though not as LTSP server...

Edited by ilia_kr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a quick question, to those using 2006 for some time... how do you find its stability, compared to 2005 and 10.1...?

 

:D

 

Still planning to replace Xandros.. though its running now....

 

:D

 

I'm not a linux pro and for me 2006 works ok, except when i download updates. Each time I updated - something went horribly wrong. Never happend in Fedora Core 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on 2006: It simply works and delivers. For me, it is tremendously reliable now with all the patches, a powerful workhorse and it simply "feels" good. And to be honest: I prefer to upgrade once a year and have a working, stable distro than to upgrade every six months with rather limited success. ;) (rolling releases are another story, of course, but we discussed this already.)

 

While 10.1 was sometimes a bit flaky, 2005 was a very solid distro. 2006 started a bit weak, but now, with all patches applied, I really can't say that it is inferior to 2005. No, it got even better. My office machines run since weeks on it without a single hickup, any freeze, any reboot. (except once when I upgraded the kernels). If you install 2006 with all patches you can't do a lot wrong.

 

You see, ilia_kr, this is the big difference between us two. You had some problems with apps that somehow broke on your Mandriva-box, I had crippled systems after Fedora updates (not FC4 but FC5). And, as pointed out in another topic, the problem with Fedora lies in the quality of the updates.

 

Check the forums and you will see that there are constanly updates that break things. Lately, many users complained about a broken yum! That makes it hard to apply patches to your machine again. If I want to run a server, I have to go the way of "minimal pain" with packages, that means, I have to be sure that the packages that I download are top-notch, otherwise I risk a server-breakdown. And the many kernel patches frighten me a bit.

 

Several people I know run Fedora (FC3 and FC4) for servers, but they always have an almost identical "test" machine where they check the updates for quality before upgrading their main server. This is imho insane. Furthermore, Fedoras lifecycle is very short compared to typical server distros. Fedora goes into legacy after 18 months = does not get official patches from Red Hat. After that, it is the communities job to keep the system patched and I don't know how efficiently they do it, to be honest. CentOS on the other hand gives you a lifecyle of five years and that is an important difference if you run servers. A desktop can be set up in one or two hours. A server needs more time and as such it should run as long as possible without a reboot.

 

Conclusion: Fedora is a great distro if you want to use the latest and greatest, if you want to develop/try out new things and it is a good distro for the average desktop, but for a server, it is a no-go.

 

If I had a business to run, I would probably fire any admin that proposes to run Fedora as a server distro. And that although I am still a Fedora-fanboy. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot go wrong using Sarge or Slack on a business server, but of course CentOS is a fine+tested solution.

Fedora, or any bleeding edge distro on a server is really equivalent to asking for trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Centos, its a rock solid as a server, but have'nt tried it as desktop ..

.

anyway, thanks for the replies, I might try the 2006 in a couple of days.. for the replacement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...